Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 21 October 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Directions Hearing via Video-Link to Court 2, Supreme Court, Cameron Street Launceston
Rodney David Synfield and Neil Raymond Graham
v
Senior Sergeant John Parker

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Adrian Raymond Nattey
Tanya Maree Devine

For Trial
Jamie Peter Smart
Rhys Louis Gardner
(Part-Heard)

1:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Tony John Pettit

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
Bail Consent
Frederick Edward Petrasek

For Trial
Trent McSpadden
Natalie Jean Millhouse
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:10pm For Trial (Part-Heard)
GCS

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15am In Court as In Chambers For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court, 7 Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Rodney David Synfield and Neil Raymond Graham
v
Senior Sergeant John Parker

BURNIE
No list for Burnie
______________________________________________________
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodney David Synfield and Neil Raymond Graham appeared before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, seeking to challenge Senior Sergeant John Parker in a matter of civil jurisdiction. The specifics of the dispute remain undisclosed, but it is clear that the plaintiffs are pursuing a claim against the defendant which necessitated a directions hearing via video link to another court. The hearing was scheduled for 9:15 a.m. in Hobart with Justice Tennent presiding.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide pertained to the procedural aspects of the case, specifically focusing on the appropriate direction for the case proceedings. This involved determining how the case should progress, including any preliminary matters that needed resolution before moving to the substantive issues. The court had to consider the logistics of conducting a directions hearing via video link, ensuring that the rights of both parties were protected and that the case was managed efficiently.

The court's reasoning and outcome were centred on facilitating a fair and effective hearing process. Justice Tennent outlined the procedural steps that would be followed, ensuring that both parties had the opportunity to present their positions. The outcome was that the court provided clear directions for the continuation of the case, establishing a framework for the subsequent stages of litigation. The final orders included instructions for the scheduling of further hearings and the exchange of necessary documentation, setting the stage for the next phase of the litigation process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established